"PARIS — A massive ice shelf anchored to the Antarctic coast by a narrow and quickly deteriorating ice bridge could break away soon, the European Space Agency warned Friday."

"Scientist are examining whether global warming is behind the shelf's breakup, the statement said. Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Farenheit (2.5 degrees Celsius) over the past half century, the statement said — higher than the average global rise."

If we keep having more and more stories like this it will make it easier for obama to ram cap and trade bs down the throats of stupid americans. Good job liberal media

Don't make the assumption that because the sun spot cycle is at or near a record low it also means the earth is cooling. What controls the global weather is the net effect of the energy inputs and the energy outputs. It's extremely complex and almost defies understanding by a layman. From a science point it's clear the complex model being used by Al Gore and the proponents of global warming is NOT the right model. It's not complex enough and doesn't allow for all the possible energy inputs and outputs. So basing global weather decisions on it will be erroneous.

469,000,000,000,000,000. Big number right? 469 quadrillion. That was the worlds (est) total BTU production in 2006. We do that every year and the numbers are growing. That is a lot of heat. I have never once heard any expert mention this heat output. I am no expert, but I think if I put a light bulb in an aquarium it would warm up in there. Instead the real experts focus on a few part per million change in CO2.

The global warming debate has shown how poorly the science community is in communicating accurate science information to the public. It's a complex task because it cannot be communicated in just sound bites for the evening news. What you should understand is this. Any theory of global weather is based on a model. Naturally you want the model to reflect as accurately as possible the natural reality. Having a model you then do, "what if?", tests on that model and see what the result is. The current alarm about global warming is based on a theoretical model many decades old. Many of the real world measurements made do not fit that theoretical model. A new theoretical model has been suggested that better fits all the measurements. It's theoretical underpinnings are more rigorous than the previous model. Much like Einsteins theory of relativity has a sound rigorous comprehensive basis.

The simplest explanation of the new model is described here: (http://www.landshape.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=introductionThis link is broken, either the page no longer exists or there is some other issue like a typo.) It's still complex and beyond the understanding of most. If you think that's bad you should see the original paper. PM me if you want a copy. Listed below are the conclusions from the referenced link. What's important is that there is a negative feedback that would prevent a global thermal runaway. Thermal run away is obviously something you would want to avoid. I've added the bold emphasis.

Begin quote

Conclusions

1 The new theory is based on relationships discovered from detailed LBL calculations, in turn based in quantitative determination of absorption properties of gasses in the laboratory. The theory is also based in more appropriate boundary conditions used in solving the differential equations describing radiation equilibrium. Unlike empirical models, his theory contains no parameters that are “fitted” to historic climate trends and greenhouse gas concentration trends. The greatest areas of difference are: * Infrared Radiation equilibrium between surface and atmosphere * Partly infrared transparent atmosphere.

The main consequence of the new theory is that the atmosphere tends to maintain an globally optimal optical thickness by water vapor take-up or release, in order to maximize maximum Outgoing Long wave Radiation for a cloudy atmosphere. This ensures that if perturbed, the system uses negative feedback to revert to a mean values, based largely on the average solar isolation. The relaxation time at this point is unknown, but would be expected to be in the order of 60 years.

2 This article shows the new theory better explains radiosonde and satellite measurements than the standard theory of “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. Measurements of the correlations with weather patterns in the tropical Pacific show the negative feedback, via changing water content of the air, and changing cloud cover and cloud height. Changes in water vapor temperature in the upper troposphere in the period 1979-1999 predicted by the standard theory as a consequence of the greenhouse gas contradict the observations.

But that just basically says what my argument against global warming has been all along: No matter what we do to the earth, the earth will correct itself in time... no matter how catastrophic the damage may seem.

I still think the global warming theory is a bunch of hogwash. I'm not really sure that all the scientific evidence is evenly biased. Simple logic would say that whomever finances the research would pay for a conclusion that would see things their way. I wouldn't pay for evidence to the contrary. If I was a scientist and was hired to prove the level of the oceans was rising, I'm sure there would be a way to make the facts appear to support that same conclusion. In order to prove me wrong someone would have to pay to prove it otherwise.Tough to do without money. I read a book that had a story line inferring that global warming was a conspiracy theory put together by a group of lawyers with the express interest of obtaining legal fees by suing nations over contrived greviences. Like oceans rising. They get some big headliner backers to sponser their cause and then get the issue tied up in court forever. Thus getting retainage fees for the length of the case, which could be decades the way international courts work. The problem is that most, if not all scientific work is financed by special interest groups, not governments. Governments have no reason to research anything and if they dothey don't get the best people do do it. They can't afford it. No one has proved that there is global warming, they have just stated that there is, so many times, that they have effectively brainwashed the public into thinking there is. Like the guy says, just follow the money trail. Scott

Yanche wrote:The global warming debate has shown how poorly the science community is in communicating accurate science information to the public. It's a complex task because it cannot be communicated in just sound bites for the evening news. What you should understand is this. Any theory of global weather is based on a model. Naturally you want the model to reflect as accurately as possible the natural reality. Having a model you then do, "what if?", tests on that model and see what the result is. The current alarm about global warming is based on a theoretical model many decades old. Many of the real world measurements made do not fit that theoretical model.

That is why all you see is false global warming reports on the news and news papers everyday. Al gore and the liberal media know global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled over on the stupid public who believe it but they don't care.

It's amazing how they never report that the earth has been cooling the last few years. Not to mention that the earth goes through small cycles of cooling and warming. nothing to be alarmed about. Remember not to long ago when the liberal scientist who are going on about global warming were telling you we were going to have another ice age? what happened to that? Ohhh i guess that is coming again in the next 5-10 years when no one buys the global warming bs anymore. Then it will be OMG watch out for the next ice age.

see its *censored* like this statement that they try to scare people with

"The pika is the tip of the iceberg," he said. "Scientists are saying if global warming continues on this track, there are more extinctions coming. I don't think that most people are willing to accept that."

Like if we dont do something now every animal on the earth will die in 2 years

Richard made a good point in another thread with this graph. Even more proof that man is not polluting the earth and causing global warming ... all of our emmisions including the horrible co has gone way down over the years. man is doing a good job despite what the liberal media would tell you ...

Richard S. wrote:

For the record many of those articles are over blown. Certainty there are hazards associated with it especially if your going to concentrate ashes in a single area. It's ironic you mention lead as that is probably the single biggest thing that has been eliminated as a pollutant, most likely due to the elimination of it from gasoline. Here's a graph provided by the EPA you won't see in the main stream media. 98% of lead has been eliminated between 1970 and 1990, note that this doesn't just apply to coal plants:

Yanche wrote:The global warming debate has shown how poorly the science community is in communicating accurate science information to the public. It's a complex task because it cannot be communicated in just sound bites for the evening news.

I wouldn't blame the science community for poor information dissemination. I would blame scientists who internalize an ideology that their political activism should be embedded in their life's work. I would blame environmental activists. I would blame the news delivery paradigm. I would blame the politicians who seek to benefit from fear and control.

Scientific theory can be complex. Climate theory certainly is complex. But, it remains unproven hypothesis. While I would advocate the obvious cautions, e.g. not defecating where you eat, the phase out of unreplaced carbon fuels in light of current knowledge would be a senseless and damaging act.

I think that there is however, a scientific reason for the control of carbon fuels that is the underlying reason for the false climate change scare....namely, the finite limits of carbon resources and the hockey stick population explosion. This climate change debate is a method of preparing for the inevitable changes that will be required of mankind, especially the western world. We need to conserve resources until other energy sources are developed. Scaring us about climate change is better than scaring us into hoarding and wars.